Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' covers the read-only nature, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds context about the 'includeUsedBy' parameter being project-scope only, which is an extra behavioral detail not stated in the annotation. No contradictions; the slight extra context justifies a 4 rather than a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of three short sentences with no redundant information. It includes the essential action, parameters, and usage distinction without fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple GET operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists what the response includes (schema, headers, example, rowVersion), explains scope options, and clarifies the intended use case. No critical missing information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema—it restates the 'project scope only' constraint for 'includeUsedBy' but otherwise repeats the schema defaults. As per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('shared response') with specific output details (schema, headers, example, rowVersion). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_shared_responses' by noting it is for when you already have the response ID, making selection unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already have the response id' and explicitly points to the alternative for browsing: 'to browse the library use list_shared_responses.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.